The Senate has released its bipartisan gun bill, which doesn't do nearly
enough to regulate guns which are easily available in this country, but
is a first step in addressing red flag laws and some enhanced background
checks specifically for gun purchasers under the age of 21.
So senators working on this bipartisan gun safety bill following a spate of mass
shootings which happened regularly in this country,
released the bill on Tuesday meeting this evening.
The bill, which was drafted by ten Republicans and ten Democrats, focuses on
red flag laws and these enhanced background checks for younger gun buyers.
It also focuses on closing something known as the boyfriend loophole.
So if you are someone who's married for instance, and
you are convicted of some sort of domestic violence issue, well,
there are laws that make it difficult for you to purchase a gun.
However, that did not extend to a boyfriend or someone who was not
married to the person who was victimized in the domestic dispute.
So, this legislation is supposed to close that loophole.
Now, if the bill becomes law, people who attempt to buy firearms under the age of
21 might be subject to juvenile background checks.
But juvenile records as you guys probably know, are generally sealed.
But the text of the legislation says that some might be requested to look for
"disqualifying conduct for prospective gun buyers".
Additionally, states will be offered grants to enact red flag laws should
they choose to, but they are not in any way forced to do so by this legislation.
So if you're a state with red flag laws, you might get some funding, but
that's about it.
And honestly those are the major provisions that are being reported on in
this bipartisan gun bill.
In my opinion and this is just my analysis for now, something else might develop.
I feel like this is just an effort to kind of get people to shut up,
right here you are we did something.
It's not nearly enough.
It's still it doesn't close the gun show loophole, right?
It doesn't implement federal red flag laws.
I mean there are so many other components that were completely ignored in this
legislation, but people have been outraged following what happened in Buffalo and.
And so since that story isn't going away, they got to do something,
they got to get people off their backs.
So I think that's what they're doing here with this proposed legislation.
>> Yeah, you you nailed it.
This feels like the ultimate here, take it.
Alright, here's anything.
Get out of here.
Get off of my back.
I'm done with you.
And I think part of it too is that this footage of police being
scared to run up in there and it's like, alright,
so police are scared as hell to run up in there.
It's like ten of them.
And they're scared to face this one dude down with a gun and what are just
defenseless children bystanders supposed to be able to do with this kind of thing.
I feel like the shameful nous of it all is like all of this.
Well the good guys with the guns are gonna save everything and
this just to proliferate more guns and it's like that's not how these things
work in reality man and the best thing that could happen is to keep these weapons
out of the hands of people who would carry out this type of thing.
But again, we don't have our mental health infrastructure in line in this country,
we don't take care of people and so we do, we're a country who produces the concept.
People wanna go out and shoot 30, 40 people at a time messed up as it sounds.
That's just the facts.
This is no other way to put it.
This is the type of country we are.
>> Yeah, you made so many great points there because every scapegoat,
every talking point that we typically hear about in response to a mass
shooting was debunked with what happened in right?
You got to have school police, they had school police.
Well, if you had a good guy with a gun, they could stop the bad guy with a gun.
A lot of alleged good guys with guns, meeting the cops, they were there from
the very beginning and they didn't stop the shooter for over an hour.
You need to have security measures on campus and
they had some security measures.
But those security measures failed, namely the classroom door,
like not locking even though it was supposed to lock automatically.
Everything that gun advocates purport would stop the gun violence,
it was just debunked through the shooting.
Go ahead.
>> No. And I want people to understand too like
it's worth mentioning because we sort of flat in the gun issue when we're
talking about it in the country and it's important for people to understand
like those cops in the middle of nowhere, Texas are not the NYPD, right?
The NYPD is an occupying force.
That thing is like a mini army and how militarized it is.
And I'm not saying we should have NYPD everywhere,
I'm just telling you like there's a difference between the capabilities and
what you can do with your police force in these kinds of situations.
When you compare NYPD who's like,
I think at last count like 40,000 people on the force,
40,000 people in the New York City Police Department, okay, 32,000 in uniform.
And so it's just a difference in what type of policing can
be done when you have that level of force and again,
just a bunch of dudes taking the best job that they probably
could get in the middle of nowhere in Texas and some real shit happened.
And it was like, hold up now I signed up for all of this,
even if I do have a gun myself.
>> Yeah.
And then the final thing I'll say is,
look what you'll also hear from gun advocates is that anyone who wants common
sense gun regulation just wants to take away all guns from law abiding citizens.
And look, I understand the frustration that someone might feel.
I'm in favor of people who are law
abiding citizens being able to
access guns, not weapons.
Yeah, I agree.
Exactly.
So, I'm in favor of having a gun for self defense.
I just am and I have no problem undergoing extensive background checks.
I'll wait a month if I have to.
I don't care if it means that it'll be harder for the bad guys to get guns.
I'll do it.
And I understand the frustration that law abiding citizens might feel if
they're inconvenienced a little bit, but think about what the trade off is.
Sure you might be inconvenienced a little bit,
but the possibility of little kids getting gunned down in their fourth grade
classroom is minimized when we have common sense gun legislation, right?
But that is not the take that really dominates most of the discussion, right?
You got the extremes and I think any time you have the extremes debating an issue,
you usually get nowhere.
And the answer isn't what we're seeing from the Senate proposal,
which is like putting a glossy cover over the worst book on the planet.
It's not gonna do anything.
But at the same time, I do think that there is a way to allow for people to
purchase guns legally because they're law abiding citizens, whether it's for
protection or for hunting and have the common sense regulations on the books.
We have regulations for everything else.
I don't see why it's a problem to have these regulations for guns.
>> Emmy you said 21 years old when you were talking about something earlier and I
was reminded that you barely couldn't even run a car from Hertz before age of 25.
Hertz wouldn't give you a Passat unless you were 25 years old yet.
It's just like, yo take a gun, I don't care, go ahead.
Do it, do it, do whatever you want with it.
It just doesn't, it don't make no sense.
It makes no sense.
It just makes no sense.
>> It makes no sense I agree with you on that.